Risk of fractures in half a million survivors of 20 cancers: a population-based matched cohort study using linked English electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: A history of multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, and breast cancer has been associated with adverse bone health, but associations across a broader range of cancers are unclear. We aimed to compare the risk of any bone fracture and major osteoporotic fractures in survivors of a wide range of cancers versus cancer-free individuals. METHODS: In this population-based matched cohort study, we used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to hospital data. We included adults (aged ≥18 years) eligible for linkage, and we restricted the study start to Jan 2, 1998, onwards and applied administrative censoring on Jan 31, 2020. The cancer survivor group included survivors of the 20 most common cancers. Each individual with cancer was matched (age, sex, and general practice) to up to five controls (1:5) who were cancer-free. The primary outcomes were any bone fracture and any major osteoporotic fracture (pelvic, hip, wrist, spine, or proximal humeral fractures) occurring more than 1 year after index date (ie, the diagnosis date of the matched individual with cancer). We used Cox regression models, adjusted for shared risk factors, to estimate associations between cancer survivorship and bone fractures. FINDINGS: 578 160 adults with cancer diagnosed in 1998-2020 were matched to 3 226 404 cancer-free individuals. Crude incidence rates of fractures in cancer survivors ranged between 8·39 cases (95% CI 7·45-9·46) per 1000 person-years for thyroid cancer and 21·62 cases (20·18-23·18) per 1000 person-years for multiple myeloma. Compared with cancer-free individuals, the risk of any bone fracture was increased in 15 of 20 cancers, and of major osteoporotic fractures in 17 of 20 cancers. Effect sizes varied: adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were largest for multiple myeloma (1·94, 95% CI 1·77-2·13) and prostate cancer (1·43, 1·39-1·47); HRs in the range 1·20-1·50 were seen for stomach, liver, pancreas, lung, breast, kidney, and CNS cancers; smaller associations (HR <1·20) were observed for malignant melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia, and oesophageal, colorectal, and cervical cancers. Increased risks of major osteoporotic fracture were noted most substantially in multiple myeloma (2·25, 1·96-2·58) and CNS (2·12, 1·56-2·87), liver (1·62, 1·01-2·61), prostate (1·60, 1·53-1·67), and lung cancers (1·60, 1·44-1·77). Effect sizes tended to reduce over time since diagnosis but remained elevated for more than 5 years in several cancers, such as multiple myeloma and stomach, lung, breast, prostate, and CNS cancers. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of most types of cancer were at increased risk of bone fracture for several years after cancer, with variation by cancer type. These findings can help to inform mitigation and prevention strategies. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

The effect of cognitive functional therapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To apply the Bio-Psych-Social (BPS) model into clinical practice, it is important not to focus on psychosocial domains only since biomedical factors can also contribute to chronic pain conditions. The cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is the management system based on the BPS model for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare CFT with the other interventions for CNSLBP regarding pain, disability/functional status, QoL and psychological factors. DESIGN: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of a randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Literature Search was conducted in electronic search engines. Enrolled participants included 1) CNSLBP and 2) primary, secondary, or tertiary care patients. CFT was the interventions included. Comparisons were any types of treatment. RESULTS: Three studies met the eligibility criteria. The total number of participants was 336. For pain intensity, MD [95% CIs] was -1.38 [-2.78 - 0.02] and -1.01 [-1.92 - -0.10] at intermediate and long term for two studies, respectively. About disability/functional status, SMD [95% CIs] was -0.76 [-1.46 - -0.07] at the intermediate for three studies and MD [95% CIs] was -8.48 [-11.47 - -5.49] at long term for two studies. About fear of physical activity, MD [95% CIs] was -3.01 [-5.14 - -0.88] and -3.56 [-6.43 - -0.68] at intermediate and long term for two studies, respectively. No studies reported scores associated with QOL. All the quality of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Three studies were included and the quality of all the evidence was very low. Although the study found statistically significant differences in some measures, the effectiveness of the CFT will need to be re-evaluated in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020158182 .

Effects of booster sessions on self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Our objective was to investigate the effectiveness of booster sessions after self-management interventions as a means of maintaining self-management behaviours in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsychINFO. Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. We calculated the odds ratio for the analyses of dichotomous data and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables. Our search identified 14 studies with a total of 1695 patients. All studies were at high risk of bias and provided very low quality evidence. For the primary outcomes, booster sessions had no evidence of an effect on improving patient-reported outcomes on physical function (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.06; P = 0.18), pain-related disability (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.03; P = 0.11), and pain self-efficacy (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.36; P = 0.18). For the secondary outcomes, booster sessions caused a significant reduction in patient-reported pain catastrophising (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.19; P = 0.0004) and no evidence of an effect on patient-reported pain intensity, depression, coping, or treatment adherence. There is currently little evidence that booster sessions are an effective way to prolong positive treatment effects or improve symptoms of long-term musculoskeletal conditions after self-management interventions. However, the studies were few with high heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and overall low quality of evidence. Our review argues against including booster sessions routinely to self-management interventions for the purpose of behaviour maintenance.